Opinion
362865
04-24-2024
People of Michigan v. Frederick Stampone
LC No. 20-006877-FC
Mark J. Cavanagh, Mark T. Boonstra Judges.
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER P. YATES PRESIDING JUDGE.
Defendant-Appellant's motion to view oral argument from a correctional facility is DENIED. "[A] defendant has a due process right to be present at a [criminal] proceeding 'whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the ful[l]ness of opportunity to defend against the charge. . . .'" United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526; 105 S.Ct. 1482; 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985). That due-process right requires the presence of the defendant at the trial, People v. Powell, 303 Mich.App. 271, 275; 842 N.W.2d 538 (2013), at the sentencing hearing, People v. Palmerton, 200 Mich.App. 302, 303; 503 N.W.2d 663 (1993), and at every other "critical stage" of the criminal proceedings. People v. Hayes, 126 Mich.App. 721, 730; 337 N.W.2d 905 (1983). This Court has noted, "[i]n the abstract, almost any part of the criminal proceeding might arguably be termed a critical stage." People v. Gasco, 104 Mich.App. 594, 597; 305 N.W.2d 552 (1981). But this Court excepted "[o]ral argument before an appellate court" because "the attorney alone approaches the appellate court[.]" Id. Thus, because a defendant has no constitutional, statutory, or rule-based right to observe oral argument either virtually or in person when counsel presents the oral argument, see id., we have no basis to order the officials of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) to afford defendant the opportunity to watch the oral argument in his case. If the officials at the MDOC see fit to accommodate a request from defendant to virtually observe the oral argument, however, this Court will assist in providing Zoom access to defendant.